Disposed

Meena Devi v. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and Ors.

Patna HC3 Sept 2019CWJC/9755/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a DRBFI Act order declaring an account NPA. The court held that since an effective statutory appeal remedy existed and was not exhausted, the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked, citing Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Application was disposed of without allowing the petition; the petitioner was directed to seek statutory appeal.

Meena Devi Vs Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9755 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Meena Devi aged 55 years, Female, W/o Sri Sheo Prasad Singh Resident of At and P.O. Karur, P.S Karakat, District. Rohtas.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ashiana Digha Road, Patna800025

¶7

Chairman, State Bank of India Madam Cama Road Mumbai, 400021

¶8

The Branch Manager State of India, Bikramgunj Branch, Rohtas.

¶9

State Bank of India Stressed Recovery Branch (SARB) at 2nd Floor of its Patna Main Branch Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 800001

¶10

... ... Respondents

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Sahay, Advocate Mr. Vikramjeet, Advocate Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binod Bihari Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Dutt Mishra, Advocate Mr. Amarjeet Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 03-09-2019 Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking to

¶13

challenge the judgment and order dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 42 of 2018. The impugned order has been passed by the learned Presiding Officer in exercise of his power under Section 19 of the Recovery

¶14

of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,

¶15

1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1993’).

¶16

This has been a consistent view of this court

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.9755 of 2019(3) dt.03-09-2019 2/4

¶18

that where there is an adequate and equal efficacious remedy of appeal available in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 1993 and the petitioner has failed to avail that remedy, the writ application need not be entertained. This court finds it’s strength from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , paragraph 43 of the judgment reads as

¶19

under:-

¶20

“43.Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.”

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.9755 of 2019(3) dt.03-09-2019 3/4

¶22

In the present case the petitioner has moved this court without exhausting alternative remedy of appeal after about eight months from the date of passing of the judgment. In course of hearing, however, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted upon a submission that the Unit in question had availed the loan facility under C.G.T.M.S.E. Scheme which is meant for the micro and small enterprises but the bank had not given the benefit of the said scheme to the defendants and arbitrarily declared the account Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶23

This court finds from the impugned judgment that the learned Presiding Officer has dealt with the said submission and has recorded as under:

¶24

“So far as the dispute regarding coverage by the Central Government under CGTMSE, is concerned, on perusal of sanction letter annexure-2, nowhere mentioned in the sanction letter as the credit facilities were advanced under CGTMSE scheme, it is clear from the sanction letter that the credit facilities were sanctioned against the hypothecation and equitable mortgage of land and building.”

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.9755 of 2019(3) dt.03-09-2019 4/4

¶26

This court called upon learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioner to demonstrate from the pleadings available in

¶28

the writ application as to whether he has assailed the aforesaid finding of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, learned counsel admits that the said finding has not been assailed.

¶29

This court finds no reason to entertain the present writ application. Petitioner, if so advised, may seek her remedy of statutory appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with law. In case such an appeal is preferred and a question of limitation arises for consideration, the appellate authority shall consider the same keeping in view the period spent by the petitioner before this court in the present proceeding.

¶30

The Writ Application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶31

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶32

Rajeev/-

¶33

Meena Devi v. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devi v. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitesh Kumar Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal

Sh. Chandra Kumar Singh Vs The Union of India

Usha Kumari alias Usha Devi Vs The Regional Manager

Ajay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Prabha Devi Vs Presiding Officer

Smt. Tara Devi Vs The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda